Allowed

K Narasimha Murthy v. the Eastern Power

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jul 2022WP/4526/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that a termination order violated principles of natural justice by failing to consider an employee's written explanation. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for an elaborate enquiry following CCA Rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination order set aside and matter remanded to 2nd Respondent to conduct an elaborate enquiry within 08 weeks.

K Narasimha Murthy Vs the Eastern Power — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4526 of 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶4

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^nd Respondent in illegally terminating the petitioner as Junior Linemen vide Memo No. EE/O/SKL/Adm/JAO/U1/D.No.115/2020, dated 31.01.2020 is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently seeking set aside the above impugned Proceedings vide Memo No. EE/O/SKL/Adm/JAO/U1/D.No.115/2020, dated 31.01.2020 and consequently reinstate the petitioner as Junior of Lineman with all benefits and pass…”

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as part time Village Electricity worker of Gram Panchayat Tandemvalasa village vide proceedings dated 28.10.1989 and thereafter, he was appointed as a contract Junior Lineman on contract basis vide proceedings dated 17.07.2002 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.3,000/- per month. On the allegation that the petitioner has produced bogus educational qualification certificates of 8^th class for securing appointment, a non speaking order vide memo dated 17.10.2003 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner as Junior Lineman. Aggrieved by the same, he field W.P.No.27109 of 2003 and this Court set aside the above impugned memo vide order dated 23.10.2018 and given liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After disposal of the above Writ Petition, the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent to consider his case by submitting a representation seeking reinstatement into service, but the 2^nd respondent without

¶6

¶7

looking into his representation and without following the directions of this Court dated 23.10.2018 in W.P.No.27109 of 2003, passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 terminating the services of the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶8

Counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition is filed by the 2^nd respondent stating that the petitioner was appointed as Village Electricity Worker in Grama Panchayat Tandemvalasa on 28.10.1989 and subsequently, he was provisionally appointed as Junior Lineman on contract basis on 17.07.2022 and thereafter his services were continued. As per the vigilance report, under instructions of the Superintending Engineer, the services of the petitioner was terminated on 17.10.2003. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27109 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the same on 23.10.2018 and set aside the said termination order date 17.10.2003 and giving liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders after giving opportunity to the petitioners to be heard. Pursuant to the said order, fresh notice was served to the petitioner calling for explanation and after receipt of explanation, the same was brought to the notice of the concurrence committee and the same was examined under the Chairmanship of Superintending Engineer/Operation/Srikakulam and sent a final report to the Divisional Engineer/Operation on 20.01.2020. In turn, the 2^nd respondent passed the final order terminating the services of the petitioner on 31.01.2020 and seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶9

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court passed an order dated 23.10.2018 in W.P.No.27109 of 2003, which reads as follows:

¶12

“Having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have passed very cryptic order without assigning any reasons and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to prove that the educational certificates produced by them are genuine. In view of the same, the proceedings in Memos dated 17.10.2003 are set aside, however liberty is given to the respondents to pass fresh orders after giving opportunity to the petitioners to be heard.”

¶13

As per orders of this Court referred supra, the petitioner made a representation to the 2^nd respondent to consider his case for reinstatement into service and the 2^nd respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 31.01.2020 terminating the petitioner from service, which reads as follows:

¶14

“xxx

¶15

After careful examination of the explanation the Executive Engineer/Operation/Srikakulam, not find out any more new points what he said in the earlier explanation and hence decided to confirm the punishment as SE/Operation/Srikakulam in the ref 8^th cited.

¶16

Accordingly the services of Sri Kunchala Narasimhamurthy, C.JLM is hererby “Terminated with immediate effect.”

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the respondents have issued fresh notice to the petitioner, but they have not followed the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 for imposing major penalty and issued a routine stereo type order terminating the petitioner from the service and requested to

¶18

¶19

remand the matter to the 2^nd respondent for conducting elaborate enquiry and final report.

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that they have issued fresh notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation and after receiving the explanation only, they have passed the termination order. He further contended that he has no objection to remand back the matter to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration.

¶21

On perusal of the impugned order, it shows that, as rightly argued by learned counsel for petitioner, the 2^nd respondent has issued the order in a routine manner. Though the petitioner submitted his written explanation to the show cause notice, the same was not considered and the procedure prescribed under the CCA rules was not followed in imposing the major penalty. Therefore, the Writ Petition is maintainable.

¶22

In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others¹ regarding maintainability of Writ Petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the

¶23

Apex Court held thus:

¶24

14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

¶25

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has

¶26

1 AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998

¶27

¶28

been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied).

¶29

The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by

¶30

the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here.

¶31

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the both the counsel, the impugned Memo No EE/O/SKL/Adm/JAO/U1/D.No.115/2020, dated 31.01.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2^nd respondent to conduct elaborate enquiry in accordance with law by affording an opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32